Nikon D500 vs D7200

Before the D500 announcement, Nikon’s best DX camera for sports and wildlife photography has been the D7200. While the D7200 is a superb camera on its own, one might be wondering how and where exactly it differs when compared directly to the new Nikon D500. The quick answer to that question is enthusiast-level DSLR vs professional-level DSLR, but there is obviously a bit more than that to talk about. Let’s take a look at both cameras and see how they differ when it comes to ergonomics and specifications.

First, let’s take a quick look at the differences in camera specifications:

Nikon D500 vs Nikon D7200 Specification Comparison

Camera Feature

Nikon D500

Nikon D7200

Sensor Resolution

20.9 Million

24.2 Million

Sensor Type

CMOS

CMOS

Sensor Size

23.5×15.7mm

23.5×15.6mm

Sensor Pixel Size

4.22µ

3.92µ

Low Pass Filter

No

No

Sensor Dust Reduction

Yes

Yes

Image Size

5,568 x 3,712

6,000 x 4,000

Image Processor

EXPEED 5

EXPEED 4

Viewfinder Type

Pentaprism

Pentaprism

Viewfinder Coverage

100%

100%

Viewfinder Magnification

1.0x

0.91x

Built-in Flash

No

Yes, with flash commander mode

Storage Media

1x XQD, 1x SD

2x SD

Continuous Shooting Speed

10 FPS

6 FPS, 7 FPS in 1.3x Crop Mode

Buffer Size (RAW, Lossless 14-bit)

200

18

Continuous Shooting

20 seconds

3 seconds

Max Shutter Speed

1/8000 to 30 sec

1/8000 to 30 sec

Shutter Durability

200,000 cycles

150,000 cycles

Exposure Metering Sensor

180,000-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering III

2,016-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering II

Base ISO

ISO 100

ISO 100

Native ISO Sensitivity

ISO 100-51,200

ISO 100-25,600

Boosted ISO Sensitivity

ISO 102,400-1,640,000

ISO 51,200-102,400 (B&W only)

Autofocus System

153-point, 99 cross-type AF system

51-point, 15 cross-type AF system

AF Detection

Up to f/8

Up to f/8

AF Detection Range

-4 to +20 EV

-3 to +19 EV

Auto AF Fine-Tune

Yes

No

Flicker Detection

Yes

No

Video Output

MOV, MPEG-4 / H.264

MOV, MPEG-4 / H.264

Video Maximum Resolution

3,840×2,160 (4K) up to 30p

1920×1080 (1080p) up to 60p

LCD Size

3.2″ diagonal TFT-LCD

3.2″ diagonal TFT-LCD

LCD Resolution

2,359,000 dots

1,228,800 dots

Illuminated Buttons

Yes

No

Articulating LCD

Yes

No

Touchscreen LCD

Yes

No

Built-in GPS

No

No

Built-in Bluetooth

Yes

No

Built-in Wi-Fi / NFC

Built-in, with NFC

Built-in, with NFC

Battery

EN-EL15 Lithium-ion Battery

EN-EL15 Lithium-ion Battery

Battery Life

1,240 shots (CIPA)

1,110 shots (CIPA)

Weather Sealed Body

Yes

Yes

USB Version

3.0

2.0

Weight (Body Only)

760g

675g

Dimensions

147 x 115 x 81mm

135.5 × 106.5 × 76mm

MSRP Price

$1,999 (as introduced)

$1,199 (as introduced)

First, there is obviously a difference in resolution – the Nikon D7200 has a 24.2 MP sensor, whereas the D500 has a 20.9 MP sensor. In resolution alone, the D7200 looks better. However, taking into account all the new sensor advancements we should be seeing on the newest generation 20.9 MP sensor, the D500 should produce visibly cleaner images at high ISOs when compared to the D7200. So when looking at images from the two cameras, the output from the D500 should be superior (we will post high ISO image comparisons when we get our hands on a D500). Nikon pushed base ISO by a full stop from 100-25,600 to 100-51,200, so I really hope that we will see a full stop or more of difference between these cameras. Boosted ISO on the D500 has been pushed to an insanely high level – ISO 1,640,000 to be exact. But that’s most likely a marketing gimmick: I don’t expect images to hold up anywhere close to those numbers in real life. Anything above ISO 12,800 is probably going to look like junk…

The first big difference comes in viewfinder magnification. The Nikon D500 has a very impressive 1.0x viewfinder magnification, while the D7200 is limited to 0.91x. This basically means that objects will appear visibly smaller when looking through the D7200 viewfinder and comparing it to the D500, making it easier to spot focus issues on the D500.

The two cameras also differ drastically when it comes to shooting speed. The Nikon D500 can shoot 10 fps continuously, while the D7200 can shoot up to 6 fps in full resolution. That’s a pretty big difference right there and it does not stop there – take a look at how huge the buffer size on the D500 is in comparison! Being able to squeeze 200 RAW images means that you can shoot for 20 seconds straight at 10 fps without slowing down on the D500, while the D7200 will basically bog down after only 3 seconds – and that’s shooting at much slower 6 fps.

Autofocus systems on both cameras are drastically different as well. The Nikon D500 comes with the all-new 153-point AF system (99 of which are cross-type), whereas the D7200 utilizes the older AF system with 51 focus points (15 of which are cross-type). With the brand new 180K pixel RGB sensor and a faster EXPEED 5 processor, we can expect the D500 to surpass the D7200 in terms of subject tracking and face recognition capabilities as well. With a -4 EV detection range, the D500 will be able to focus better and more precise when shooting in low-light conditions (the D7200 is limited to -3 EV). Lastly, the focus point coverage on the D500 is also superior in comparison, allowing one to use focus points close to the edge of the frame.

When it comes to storage media, the D500 comes with one XQD and one SD memory card slots. XQD is far better than SD not only in read/write speeds, but also in reliability, so it is a huge plus for the D500 and something the D7200 cannot really compete with. The D500 also has better connectivity options, thanks to the built-in Bluetooth chip.

It is also important to point out the LCD screen differences between these two cameras. Whereas the D500 comes with an articulating LCD touchscreen that has over 2 million dots, the D7200 has a standard 3.2″ LCD screen that not only has half the resolution, but also is not articulated or touch-enabled.

In terms of video shooting capabilities, the Nikon D500 can shoot up to 4K video, whereas the D7200 is limited to 1080p HD recording.

The three big advantages in favor of the D7200 are weight, size and price. The D7200 is noticeably smaller, 85 grams lighter and is significantly cheaper in comparison, even when comparing its launch MSRP price.

Ergonomcs

When it comes to ergonomics and handling, the D500 and the D7200 differ greatly – a pro-level camera vs an enthusiast-level camera. The differences start with the overall handling and design – the D500 is built just like the high-end DSLRs such as the D810, whereas the D7200 has a completely different design that incorporates a PASM dial and user-selectable settings. You can see these differences right away when looking at the two cameras from the top:

On the D500 you have direct access to ISO, image quality and white balance settings through the top left dial and a dedicated ISO button, whereas the D7200 incorporates those as secondary functions on the back of the camera. Speaking of the back layout, take a look at the differences between the two:

There are a few major differences here. First, the viewfinder pieces are very different. The D500 has a round viewfinder piece that has a built-in light block shutter, whereas the D7200 has a removable viewfinder piece only. When it comes to buttons, the D500 has an extra Function 2 button, a dedicated joystick and an AF-ON button, whereas the D7200 has none of those – instead of the AF-ON button, there is an AE-L / AF-L button that can be reprogrammed to work as an AF-ON button (must be done through the camera menu). Other differences, such as lack of built-in flash and articulating touchscreen have already been pointed out earlier in this article.

Lastly, there is also a difference of build quality. The D500 is built to be a rugged workhorse camera that can withstand a lot of abuse in the field. As a result, it has a superb build and solid weather sealing. The D7200 is also pretty tough and weather sealed, but not as good as the D500.

Related articles:

About Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov is a professional photographer based out of Denver, Colorado. He is the author and founder of Photography Life, along with a number of other online resources. Read more about Nasim here.

Not wrong there. People look at a DX sensor wrong, they think it’s inferiour to an FX sensor, when in fact it’s just a different sensor for different needs, and happens to be cheaper to build. I’d be interested to whether all the prof photogs that use D8xx series now switch to the D500 for that extra reach and speed, which (hopefully) might justify the drop in mega pixels

For a night event larger DOF is a welcomed “issue” when combined with high speed primes. I currently use D750 with a 35mm or 50mm f/1.4 prime usually set at 1.4-1.8 (D750 has my old SB-800 flash) and D810 with 20mm f/1.4 prime (focusing of D810 in low light is inferior to D750 ans is high iso noise – I limit both at 6400-8000) I would gladly use D500 with either 24mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4 primes and put my 20mm on D750 – or maybe have my 20mm on D500 for larger DOF at low f-stops – I would have to experiment. Also, I would love to get Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 as it is a zoom which is only 2/3 of a f-stop slower than a prime – New D500 sensor would most likely allow me to allow 2/3 stop ISO bounce to compensate for slower lens, and having 27-52.5mm would be sweet! :)

More than one pro photographer in workshops I’ve attended recommended DX over FX sensors for bird photography because more of the pixels are concentrated where the birds are, in the middle of the visual field.

This is absolutely right! I found this as soon as I bought a D750 home, tested and compared with DX cameras. After more research and deep thought, I figured out why D750 or similar FX cameras have more blurry pictures than DX. The root cause is just because the focus is only put on central part of your pictures! The more pixels outside of that area, the more blurry the picture. I will return my D750 and buy a new DX camera instead. In other words, I would prefer DX camera with wide and high-end lens.

Don’t we all. Life and cameras are complicated and we can only pay attention to one detail at a time. Fortunately with cameras (unlike cars), lives and health aren’t at stake. Admitting the inevitable errors and correcting them is the best any of us can do. In my 10 year experience with Nikon, they have been very good this way.

David: Agreed. From what I’ve seen, Nikon has been very honest, and honorable, when the inevitable mistakes have occurred. Just admitting a mistake has been made is a big step that very few large companies bother to take, let alone coming up with a solution to the problem that keeps the customers happy. Or most of them, anyway.

This attribute is a major reason I’ve stuck with Nikon (and Sigma) products. To borrow your car analogy, if a car company is less than honest about a glitch that’s discovered by others, I can’t help but wonder what other, undiscovered glitches are lurking in the engine, transmission, brakes, etc. While, as you mentioned, a few grease spots on a sensor won’t cause major injury or fatalities (unless the offending camera is angrily hurled away and bonks someone on the head), having a few thousand dollars worth of camera turn into a useless lump probably takes at least a few weeks or months off the owner’s lifespan.

Sorry Chuck but I must entirely disagree with you. Since my relationship dates from 1974 with Nikon they certainly used to be honourable. However recent issues (the D600 is an example) where until USA created a ‘Class-Action’ over the black grease hurled into the corner of the sensor an individual had no chance of getting any admission of an issue out of Nikon.

Nikon’s quality control seems very poor in recent years and (as anther poster said) a catalogue of errors and quality faux issued have dogged them. Despite this they are still slow to come forward and admit anything until cornered. My patience is tested and I am reluctant to purchase newer products now until they have ironed out these issues.

I think it is actually a fair price. I bought my D300 almost 8 years ago for $1,800.

I bought the D750 last January, if Nikon had the D500 camera then I would buy it instead of the D750. Crop sensor or not, I have a feeling it will perform better than the D750. And with the built quality of the D300/D700, it’s a workhorse.

the technology got cheaper, You can get now a D3200 for $300 and is way better than the D70. I get the impression that Nikon has raised the median prices of cameras and lenses. Maybe following Sony price policies (but Sony reminds me of inkjet printers or razors: sell you the camera at a relatively low price and then overcharge you with the lenses).

Anyway with the falling prices of solid state memory and processors providing a fast buffer I do not believe is that expensive. And how much is the cost of the magnesium versus the plastic? Can’t be more than a few dollars, yet it allows a way higher profit margin.

You make a very good point but it is not anymore how much it costs for them to make. It is about how much you are willing to pay (you, me and everybody else…).

If you look at “hook titles” that lure you to buy photography equipment (everything really but photography is known for that), they try to build “value” by telling you how much more money you are going to make if you have this and that. Or how clients are going to love you if you offer them this and that -and yeah, we just “lower” the price on “this-and-that”, you lucky bastard and it’s “only” for this week. Blah, blah, blah.

Value is perceived by how you are going to look with it, use it and how much IT will “do” for you. Not how much it should really cost you.

I will go out on the limb here (a very thin one ;-)) and guess that the D500 costs to make around $150-$200. Don’t bite my head, it is a wild guess, no more. It is then offered to retailers for around $1,200-$1,400. Again, a complete guess.

Your wild guesses are way off the mark. Have you seen the level of complexity involved into making a DSLR. There is a bag of screws someone has to put together in a clean room. The margins for the D% bodies is higher but I doubt they even break even on the D3*** models. I’d venture to say that for a $3k body: – $500 went into R&D – $1000 for parts and labor – $500 into marketing and support – $1000 profit spread among nikon and distributors/retailers/state taxes

For the D% bodies, add another $500 for R&D, another $1k for parts and labor, another $500 for support and warranty and another $1k in profit, taxes etc.

If you want to look at what’s cheap to make and where margins are high as f*ck, look at the cell phone manufacturers, Samsung and Apple’s profit charts, selling $200 in parts/r&d devices for $800-1000! Just check the public records on how much money these companies have made in the past 7-8 years just from toys called cell-phones.

You start saying his wild guesses are way off mark and then you make more wild guesses, and I dare to say even more off the mark. At least you mentioned R+D which I don’t think Motti took into consideration, but there are a gazillion other things that add up to the cost of each camera. For them to make any profit (i.e. recover their investment and then some) the camera itself (i.e. materials and parts bought from third parties and not taking into account any other cost since that makes part of their initial investment to be able to produce the cameras and some other previous cameras in the first place) can’t be more than a few dollars. Yet, this is irrelevant because we do have to take into account their investment. For us not running their accounting is very hard to guess, I bet not even they can put an exact number on how much they cost, just close enough to project their estimated earnings. Is obviously even more complex than this.

If you are really interested in how companies do all this, read about ERP (Enterprise Resource Management), MPM, etc.

Having handled at shot the D500 on Tuesday, I was amazed at the ISO results at 640,000. It was as good as ISO 1600 on my old D200. So your presumptive statement about ISO 12,800 being junk is clearly based on a guess and not on experience. Was it grainy? Yes, but still quite acceptable. Nikons reps would not allow me to use my own SD card when I shot the D500, some things they are still strict about before release. There were 8 D500 bodies onsite BEFORE the official announcement of the camera. I did get to take some pre-show pics of them.

Carter ….. If you are saying you shot iso 12,800 with acceptable graining…this is what I waiting to hear. I shoot birds on the marsh and on cloudy day iso can get well over 1000 on my d7100. I considered FF for this reason but the lenses I have are DX and I didn’t want to spend drastically on new ones. Will wait now to see some photos shot at these numbers.

Prasad: According to what we heard at the D5-D500 launch events, pre-production D500 models have been in use by beta testers since at least January, 2016, and possibly before that.

And just so I don’t get anyone in trouble, I don’t mean that we were openly told any details about this time-frame by any of the Nikon reps, but when they were relating their hands-on experiences with the new cameras, it sounded like they had fairly extensive use of the cameras, and in some pretty far-flung places. But that’s just a guess.

It also appeared that most, but not all of the announced functions on the new camera were operative on those beta test models. As I mentioned in another comment, the new AF fine-tune was not functional in the models we were allowed to see and shoot with. And we could only view any high ISO shots we took on the camera’s LCD. I wish we could have seen a few of those shots on a monitor, so we could check for high-ISO noise more closely, but that option wasn’t available. But there were a few high-ISO photos shown on the projection screen during the presentation.

Anyone who had any hopes of slipping their own card into one of the display models had those hopes dashed in a big way, since the card doors were taped-shut, and – obviously – the cameras were very closely watched as we used them. Can’t really blame them for that!

One thing I learned at the presentation that others here probably already know is that there’s a reason for Nikon’s sort of subtle herding towards XQD cards. (the D500 takes one CF and one XQD card, like the D4, and the D5 has two versions, one with two CF slots and one with two XQD slots.) Until the launch presentation I didn’t know that Nikon is very involved and invested in the development of XQD, which explains a lot. This was mentioned at the launch, as was the fact that both the D5 and D500 are designed to accept firmware updates allowing truly insane future XQD card capacities, … the term “terabytes” was mentioned at least once. With ultra-high-speed processing being the obvious goal, I guess in the not too distant future we’ll have cards that load our images to our computers and hard-drives before we even shoot them, which will definitely be a time-saver. ;)

ISO noise is a funny thing – its not all about noise, but also about light falloff – the ISO negatively affects images with high contrasts. I have captured usable images (with D750) using iso 25,000 (more even lit scene) while some ISO12,800 images showed so severe shadow fusing that it made them almost unusable. I have found that limiting iso to 8000 gives me high percent of usable images for a nightclub or a concert event. Anything higher than that is a hit-and-miss. I can’t wait to test D500 in this regard. If I can safely boost 2/3 of ev to iso 12,800 this would counteract what I lose using lens like Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art – and that would be an amazing thing :)

There always seems to be someone trying to get a dig in against Nikon whenever a new camera is released, especially if that camera is way ahead of the latest offering by Canon. Ever since the D600 trounced the 6D, Canon Fanboys have been frantically blowing every problem out of proportion to denigrate Nikon for beating their precious Canon offerings. Almost every comment section for a new Nikon camera release has some reference to “the oil/dust issue”. The flagship Canon 1DX had it’s own oil and dust problems, which many complained about were not recognized for a long time and may still not be resolved. Funny how you don’t see huge discussions questioning whether the new 1DX MkII will still have the “problem”. Or just Google 5DMk2 Focus Issues and read what comes up. Another Canon with issues, yet no big discussions when a new Canon is released. Seems like everybody hates you when you’re on top.

Very true and historically in extreme cold weather testing or use for that matter, Canon ‘pro’ bodies have failed far more as compared to Nikon bodies, infact one article I recall where ten bodies of each were tested at one of the poles, and Nikon didn’t fail one , where two Canon bodies totally failed and two had malfunctioning issues.

Why do “Canon Fanboys” even care about Nikon failings? Are they looking for something better than what Canon has??? All I know is that if someone is taking my “picture”, I don’t want them shooting me with a Canon.

And that kind of statement is the problem we are having. I am a nikon user, have been for many, many years, but I DO NOT CARE what is someone using – some of the best photogs use Canon (just as nikon) – there really isn’t much of the difference between both cameras – its a preference… They are both VERY capable camera systems

I stand corrected Nasim. Another great article. Can’t wait to see what the D900 has to offer :) or smaller body mirrorless sensor. A few week ago, I was considering an A6000, but bought d5500 instead yesterday right before the D500 announcement. Lol.

I don’t know about the advantage of hanging on and then upgrading. I bought a D7200 to replace my old D7000. I loved the D7000 but for some undefinable reason haven’t fallen in love with my D7200 after about 6 months of almost daily use. The D7000 photos matched up to the D7200 to my eye. I’m sorry that I didn’t just replace my D7000 with a rebuilt one for 1/2 the cost of the new D7200 and used the difference to help buy a lens.

A bigger buffer size is a definite plus in shooting flying birds. Beyond that, I haven’t experienced that all the specification changes make much, if any difference in what shows up on the computer screen after a photo is processed with LightRoom.

David, it goes to show you how easy it is to waste money – if you could have gone back to the moment you were deciding, I bet you would have used the money to travel, or to upgrade your lenses instead.

The D7200 is widely acclaimed, so you have not done anything wrong, but it is easy to fall into the upgrade route when the upgrade is not providing the individual person in many cases, with anything they didn’t already have.

I’m definitely sticking with my D5500 – I have not used half of the features yet, and it is, fortunately, a definite improvement for me, over my previous D5200, but I gather the D5300 – D5500 is not a worthwhile upgrade, as all the important stuff has already been addressed in the older model.

Certainly makes you think, I am not playing Nikon’s game, there are far too many models arriving, far too quickly, I am going to stick with my body and get the most out of it. Not ruling a future model upgrade out of the question, but definitely, it would have to offer me quite a lot more in order to attract my cash.

Your point is well taken. I still use my old D5100 as a backup camera, including on a two week vacation last autumn in Portland, OR after my D7000 died. The photos came out beautiful, I think as good as if my D7000 had been taking them.

Hi David, yes, the D5100 was a much loved (by me) camera, the tilting LCD was the main motive, but the increase in Mpx from the D5000 was the other ‘carrot’.

I had to trade it in order to get my D5200, and that went when I got the D5500. All of them are fine cameras and, used properly, will yeild results of a first class nature. It took me a while to catch on to the fact that the lens is more important, and I have probably had 12 lenses pass through my hands in the past 5 years before settling on the 5 I now use, and intend to keep / replace.

Good lenses make a heck of a difference, anyone reading this, please learn from me, it took a while for me to cotton onto it properly!

As I have mentioned before, I lovet the D5500. Crazy image quality and an articulating screen at a killer price. I recommended one to my 15 year old great nephew and he is having sooo much fun with it. Honestly, I see only a couple reasons to consider a D7xxx camera vs a D5500 – high speed sync (something I personally can’t live without) and the separate 2 dial setup. Even two dials wouldn’t matter to most users. They are just great machines that compete with any other DSLR in terms of potential image quality. That is really something given that it is meant as an “enthusiast” camera.

I used the D5100 on several travels, took very nice photos. The main con for me was the very small, tunnel like viewfinder and the lack of a AF motor (but the latter understandable and not a huge deal). But my D7000 and then D7100 had such a better larger viewfinder.

Now the D3200 and D3300 (and some D5xxx too) can be found on sale for 300/400 dollars with a lens. I recently started to use 2 sony A6000 and oreded a Sony A7 on sale. I was thinking of selling my Nikon DX glass and D7100. But the Sony sometimes are unreliable to focus at some event / party in a dark environment.

the D500 may be great for people who do sports, red carpet, and nature, but the D7200 seems a better deal unless the high ISO of the D500 is something great. D7200 has weather sealing as well. Magnesium or plastic, if you drop your camera on a hard surface you got to have serviced it in any case.

very true, I own the 7200 (upgraded from D7100) and the D750 which are both wonderful cameras.

That bieng said, i am waiting for the real world results and leaning towards upgrading my 7200 for this 500 and will (if everything is as good as they say it is on paper) use it more than my D750 when out and about but will use the D750 for the studio.

3.1.1.1.1.1.1.2) Chris

January 9, 2016 at 10:26 am

The d5100 and the d7000 share the exact same Sensor so that is to be expected.

Sticking with my D7000 for now…….I’m not sure the improving technology improves quality that much under “normal” conditions – low light/fast action maybe but for me don’t think the extra $$$$ is worth it for the small %age of shots where I would benefit. My partner has “inherited” my D60 and the difference in quality is not that obvious.

I’ve slowly come to love the D7200. My dead D7000 just came back from Nikon Service. They did excellent and prompt work as usual. The camera looks worn but it’s working as good as new. After using the D7000 for a couple of days I’m still impressed with the photo quality but like the feel, control layout, and features of the D7200 more. I’ve no intention of changing cameras for a long time but hopefully will get a longer and faster lens by Christmas.

I was about to go full frame 750 from 7100 because of noise issues, but will this 500 deliver on that front? I never go over 6400 and can’t go over 1250 in low light on 7100. That’s why a comparison would be good for me.

Yes the question is whether we still need FX. Would like to see a comparison in IQ between D750 and D500. I think only the real pixel-peepers still need FX and people that shoot mainly extreme wide-angle.

If high Iso is really that good I think there will not be or just a negotiable a visible difference in IQ. The advantages of APS-C are still there: less vignetting or other lens problems. smaller (cheaper!) lenses possible and an advantage in the tele-end. This is of course not what Nikon (or other proud FX owners) wants to hear but It could be reality.

The question is whether we still need FX. Would like to see a comparison in IQ between D750 and D500. I think only the real pixel-peepers still need FX and people that shoot mainly extreme wide-angle. I think a good comparison between D750 and D500 in IQ is very usefull

I know it isn’t a fair comparison to full frame, but for how good this D500 looks, do you have any advice or consideration for someone considering this D500 versus spending a bit more money for one of the lower end full frame cameras?

Just wondering for someone on the fence about this what the differences are that will truly matter in real life shooting, that might make a person want to skip this for a full frame?

I have the same question- had been planning on getting the D750, that is really $100.00 less than the 500. After consideration, think I’ll still go with the 750FF though I love the build and function of the 500. I currently have the 7100 but have some FF lens.

I know I am not Nasim, and my answer may be somewhat ineloquent, plus understand that there have been no real metrics published on the comparison; but:

As a general rule FX sensors provide better lowlight performance that DX crop sensors. This is just a physics thing. As far as I am concerned the possible ISO settings have little to do with lowlight image quality. It took several “experts” some time to convince me that the same image taken in low light by both “comparable quality” FX & DX cameras; would have less noise, etc. on the image taken by the FX body. It has to do with the sensor & pixel size.

Thanks, I figured this might be a difference, just hard to know what it measures in real life results, not under a microscope if you know what I mean. I suppose Full frame might be better for wide angle as well?

Hi First time here…You say that comparing the D500 with the D750 is apples to oranges comparison….but is FX really better than DX? I read your article on the matter and love my D750 but I dont like the small focus area and the fact that it doesnt track as well as I would like.. If I thought the quality of pics would be the same, I would be very tempted to switch.. Your thoughts?

I feel the same way. I have a d7200, and, just have not loved it. One silly part do the reason is that the grip is better for me on the 750….also… Wanting a FF. So, now on the fence…is it better to go FF (750), or the d500? I was all set on the Ff

Nasim.. great series of comparison for the D500.. I too am intrigued as they both are in the same price point. I had read your article “DX or FX for Sports and Wildlife Photography” and wanted to know how D500 will compare against D750 and D810.

I see that you have been very busy with Nikon’s latest announcements! I very much enjoyed reading all of your articles as usual, but this one was the one I was waiting with great anticipation: the comparison between the old and the new Nikon DX flagships. Since I shoot with my beloved D7100, I reckon the above comparison will come close to my case.

I was wondering if, with the arrival of the new D500, the DX DSLR’s world will get a new boost or a new reason of existence? Is this an answer to the mirror-less cameras’ increased importance in digital industry? Is the D500 a “game-changer” in DX cameras? With its increased professional specs, has the D500 created itself a new place in the world between DX and FX (or better said between amateurs and pros) compared to the D7100/7200’s place? Finally, do you think the D500 will make the step for enthusiasts more difficult from DX towards FX?

I am sure you can’t wait to test this camera! Well, I can’t wait to read your review on it :-)

ha ha…Is anyone more excited about this new Nikon than Nasim? Besides me that is :) I have been waiting for this one for a long time and had given up. The D7000 series are not serious cameras and should never have been tagged as Nikon’s flagship DX. I will be on the waiting list for this and just hope it gets delivered before the spring bird migration.

It’s certainly a serious camera for many of us. Looking at the beautiful photos they can take, the solid and precise construction of the cameras, the complexity and sophistication of the internal electronics, the extensive menu systems, the well thought out external controls their cost, they certainly have fooled me into thinking they’re “serious”.

Yes, Max, I wonder just what the definition is of a “serious camera”. I have had over 30 cameras in my life. Okay, only 9 of them have been digital, and only 6 of those have been Nikon DSLRs. I use my D7200 every day. The D7000 (which I still have) isn’t something I use all that much, but the D7100, & D7200 are what I would call serious cameras. I would have no problem recommending either one of those to someone whose shooting needs suggest need for a crop sensor.

Really, “The D7000 series are not serious cameras”? Well while you have been sitting around waiting for a “serious” camera I have shot over 100,000 photos on my D7000 and D7100 cameras. In all types of weather conditions. Shooting various subjects. They have always preformed well. They have all the requisite dials and buttons for me to adjust the camera to the situation. And I take my photography seriously. so for me they ARE “serious cameras”.

I agree with everything in your post. The size, weight, weather resistance, solid construction, picture quality, adaptability and value of the D7000 series makes them ideal for “serious” photography enthusiasts like me.

The up arrow on the selector ring on the back of my D7000 stopped working after many years of hard use. Otherwise the camera continued performing well. I just sent it to Nikon for repairs to become the backup for my D7200.

While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the D7100 & D7200 aren’t “serious” cameras, I have to agree with Monte on one point; … the builds of the D300 and the upcoming D500 put them into a (pardon the grammar) slightly “more serious-er” category. Please don’t take that as a slam against the 7000 series, especially since they have a few unique bells and whistles that I love. Let’s just say that both series are tanks, but the armour on the D300 is just a tad more robust, so to speak.

As always, from me, a slightly conservative view. I am looking at the comparison Nasim has been very kind to construct, out of the known specifications of both D7200 and D500 and it seems that, already, the D7200 has been left behind somewhat, if the features on the D500 are features you actually WILL need.

200 shots in 20 seconds sounds impressive, but if you are a landscape photographer, or a macro shooter, or a wedding shooter, it is overkill in the extreme, a bit like using a Ferrari to go to Walmart for your weekly shop. I get that there is a pride of ownership issue, and a great many people buy not only cameras, but other ‘pro-sumer’ products for the buzz of owning the latest and greatest. That is well and good.

Interestingly, the D500 body is racked up in the UK for ‘pre-order’ at £1729.00. In USD that converts to ($1.46 = £1) $2524.00 whereas the D5500 body, in the UK, sells for the equivalent of $730 (that is around £500 GBP)

To put that in perspective, you could buy 3.4 Nikon D5500 bodies for the price of one D500.

That is a heck of a difference, and in my book, with it’s 38 point autofocus and swivelling touch screen and wifi, the D5500 would be the one I would rather drop accidentally, and just go and buy another, given the features on the D500 do not particularly set me on fire, and it would also mean a lower resolution, the D5500 having 24.4 Megapixels to the D500’s 21Mp.

My deal maker on the D5500 though, is the light weight of the body, which is fantastic if like me, you want a DSLR, but face long walks with the equipment slung on your back, due to the nature of the photography.

I don’t envy anyone owning one of these D500’s, and from my perspective, unless they are true wildlife or action photographers, I have to question why they would even want one.

As far as I can tell from searching the tech specs on Nikon’s site, it isn’t even weather sealed? To get that, you need the D5, which in the UK, in dollar equivalent, is running at about $7590 (£5199). If you doubt me, take a look at

Let’s hope that Nikon have no issues with the new body, as the D600 had. It may seem unlikely but until it is out there in quantites, inherent faults tend not to show up.

The 10fps and 200 frame buffer is a huge item for me and many others I suspect. It is not that I go around shooting a huge burst of 20 or 30 images at a time, in fact I would rarely do that, but the ability to shoot say 5 frames in half a second burst means I never miss that critical action shot. If you have put yourself in an incredible position to get spectacular action in just the perfect location and light you don’t want a D7200 in your hands that craps out on you in 3 seconds! Trust me I have been there and done that. Nothing more frustrating.

Autofocus Ross is talking about landscapes and weddings. In landscapes at least there is no “missing the critical shot” by 1/5th of a second. You are much more likely to miss that critical shot by not waiting 1/5th of an hour for the light to change.

As for AF, who autofocuses a landscape? Barrel focusing is usually better. Besides, you are using a tripod and are free to fiddle with the camera as much as you like without disturbing your composition. You sometimes do need autofocus — but with a subject that hasn’t moved in the Pleistocene you are unlikely to need the new advanced features.

For sports and wildlife, yes of course the D500 is almost certainly far better. I add the hedge word “almost” merely because we’ve seen no tests.

I dunno about a D7200, but the D7000 has a plug on the left side, hidden by a rubber flap. But you don’t really need it, as the camera comes with a built-in infra-red shutter release — pretty inferior, but the release remote only costs two dollars from Vello.

D7200 is tough, big and heavy (compared to entry level DSLRs and mirrorless bodies), fast, reliable, has excellent AF system. D500 is tougher, bigger, heavier, faster, more reliable and probably has the best AF system, and has some additional beauties (like auto AF adjustment, WiFi etc..). I expect image qualities to be similar, even at high ISO but that’s to be seen. For an average user, D7200 is probably the best Nikon DSLR (DX or FX). Now, D7300 (or 7500?) will probably have similar properties as D500, if you have the patience to wait for 1 year.

I have a d7200 for a second camera and I have gotten some really excellent images up to around 3200 iso using proper exposure and even light conditions. I will also be a bit surprised if the actual image quality is much if any higher than on the d7200. The d7200 has an excellent auto focus, fast acquiring focus and good tracking. I shoot a lot of bird images and never hold the button down for more than a second or so, so buffer is not that important over the d7200. I will wait and see how the d500 pans out image wise compared to the d7200 before I fork out the money for an update. New cameras are coming off the assembly line faster than pancakes so what’s new today will be up dated tomorrow.

Larry Its quite true new models have extremely short life, this is because of the cell phone camera technology that is reducing considerably the need for the general population to buy a D-Slr or any camera. All the camera manufacturers out of the cell phone market are fighting for their survival by creating at a crazy pace new camera gear to create as much as possible obsolescence, because they well know that the average D-Slr user can pull out 1-2K$ for a new camera body, but the majority of them won’t pull that amount of money for a lens. This is probably the reason the DX format does not have any pro lenses. Nikon & Canon are only responding to tamron & sigma by putting on the market new lenses with much better value per dollar than they had to just a few years ago. I am sure as soon as the D500 sales will slow down a new replacement model will come to the market. They were extremely long to respond to the replacement of the D300s, and I am sure the canon 7D MKII was the trigger to make their clients to switch to canon. The good news, is if you act smartly you will be able to buy second hand or heavily discounted with low-shutter counts cameras for a fraction of the price the original owner paid for. I wanted drastically to go to FX near 3 years ago, when the D600 and all the praise the camera sites & DXOMARK were writing. I said to myself wait a year before buying it…… and you know what happened….. Look how people are rushing to place a pre- order without nobody having any experience (flaws, problems, reliability) with it . I am sure if the product is not as they dreamed it would be , they will be the first one to criticize publicly Nikon as the way they did with the D600,D750,D800.

Humans are humans with 15-20% of rationality and 80-85% irrationality………That is who we are….

Nasim, Excellent group of articles on the new Nikons – Exceptionally helpfull – well written and lightning fast out of the traps Congratulations and many thanks – Looking forward to adding the D500 to my D7200 as my wedding camera Thanks again and continued success

Will be keen to see if the D500’s AF wil be as good as in the D5, yes they share the same RGB & Expeed and the AF pts will cover the sensor/screen better than the FF D5, but the same situation applied when the D810 was released and it was supposedly the same AF as in the D4s, but clearly the 810’s AF was not as good as the D4s, let alone the D4 ;) I have pre-ordered the D5, but will hold out on the D500 pending a full review comparison with AF between the D500 and the D5.

Yes, Nikon have made the D500 a niche Sports/Wildlife machine (Yeh!), so it comes down to the FPS, handling, AF and ISO (IQ is a given). And, since the AF, ISO and FPS appear to be sorted, my purchase decision will be 100% based on the ergonomics. Is it really solid like a D8xx, rather than small and fiddly like a D750? Is the viewfinder really big and bright like a 7dii and FX bodies? I will be able to decide in the first 5 seconds. These are the key features for an outdoor shooter. The D7200 is great, but try spending 4 hours looking through a small viewfinder, or balancing a 300mm F2.8 on it, and you recall the genesis of the SLR -> in the field handling. I’m still waiting for someone to stick a sensor in a F5 body!

As an aside, anyone know why we need separate i and info buttons? What was wrong with one click info, two clicks i like on the D300s/D700? Am I missing a functionality?

So I’ll trade a flash all day for a decent viewfinder on DX (carry another couple of bodies anyway). D7xxx is a great enthusiast range and gives more than enough IQ, but when you’re outdoors for long periods, an ergonomic body really does make a (£1k worth) difference IMHO.

I have been shooting wildlife very successfully with D7xxx cameras for sometime including with pro lenses, and the viewfinder is the biggest issue for me – not the frame rate or buffer. After using pro FF cameras it was quite a come down. Weight became just too big an issue. Hopefully, the D500 will address this. Spec wise it does. For me, purchasing a D500 is a no brainer and the price is entirely reasonable IMHO. “I’m still waiting for someone to put a sensor in an F5 body” ….best quote of the day!

Agreed. Looking at the pictures of the D500 viewfinder, it appears somewhat higher than usual, and Nikon are saying it has a large angle of view and low eye relief. The round eyepiece is usually superior in my experience too, so fingers crossed this is bigger and brighter than previous DXs. Funny how with all the tech advances, what really makes a difference is ‘correct’ handling.

I think the D500 really is a great camera for sports and wildlife. But other than that, I am not so sure… With that tag price, I think one is best served with a FF or, if money is an issue (as is for most enthusiasts), the cheaper D7200 may prove more than one may need.

True, if you do only still photography. Mine has so many back focus problems specially under incandescent light, particularly with slow moving objects, that I use it only outside in good light, and very rarely. When I got my D7100, with its extremely good AF and pic quality (for a DX camera) it was retirement for my old D7000 that is now sleeping in the back of one of my drawers.

I know it’s apples vs oranges but it’d be interesting to see a comparison between the D500 with it’s pro-level features and the D3s and D4(s). Used prices are going to get awfully competitive for those two.

The new AF on the D500 looks very promising, but is it interesting for people using slow aperture zoom lenses like the Sigma 150-600 or the similar Tamron , knowing that the D750 with its 51/15 focusing point is only using 1 cross-typed focusing point at 600 mm where theses two lenses are mostly used for birding in flight. At aperture of F5.6 (200 mm) you have 9 central cross-typed that can be used. Is it the same that applies to the D500, and is this lens only interesteing to be used for faster lenses ? regards Luc

I don’t know for sure, but it seems unlikely that Nikon would hamper the AF performance of the D500 with lenses like the new 200-500mm, a likely match. Pros who are using the 600/4 and 400/2.8 for sports are more likely to use the D4s/D5 as primary body.

My question was adressing to lower price zoom lenses (150-600) with max aperture from F5 -6.3, and at 600 mm with a max aperture of 6.3, not the expensive long lenses with apertures of F4 or F2.8 . If you can’t spend a minimum 3-5K$ for long focal lenses is this camera for you….? Yes the buffer is fantastic with its burst rate, but if the AF is not any better with theses lenses than with the D7200 or D750 it becomes for me a deal breaker.

With the pro layout, stronger body, greater FPS rate, 1/8000th shutter speed and 1/250 sync speed, the D500 appears to be a true pro-level DX camera, especially for sports and wildlife given the extended DX focal range. If you are making money with your camera this is a no-brainer. Otherwise, yes, the 7200 and 5500 seem to be great consumer-level cameras. It’s all about how you use it.

Hi Frank, I couldn’t agree with you more, if you are making money with your camera then you MUST pursue the technological advances – and quickly.

For mere mortals who can’t reclaim purchase taxes or make a depreciation claim against income on such ‘capital’ goods (as accountants call them) then the 3.4 x price difference between the D500 and D5500 is a difference which needs to be balanced against the features – will they be regularly used and needed for your type of photography. Unless you are certain that they will be (eg, 200 shots in 20 seconds) then maybe it is best to wait it out for the next model to arrive, and then buy the D500 as the price goes a little south.

There is the cost of lenses to consider also – I could do a lot of damage with the price difference between these bodies, in terms of buying new glass. (did you read my previous post concerning the huge price difference in the UK when compared to the USA price?)

I fully agree with you in the pro context. Does anyone know if this D500 is properly weather sealed (I know the D5 is, but I am unclear on the D500. If not, why not?) Come on Nikon! Let us poor Europeans in on a good deal too!

“…if you are making money with your camera then you MUST pursue the technological advances – and quickly.”

That rocked me on my heels. I am still mourning film. With film, a 20 year old OM4-T or a 50 year old large format will outperform any film camera made after 1995.

But digital is still on the steep part of the technology sigmoid curve. Every iteration makes a big leap in quality. You gotta keep up if you don’t want clients wandering away to someone who produces sharper, clearer images for the same price.

However, it won’t last. Even D7xxx’s produce images far better than Internet or newsprint uses can support. Magazine covers and fashion spreads have always been the ultimate consumers of dpi — but print is dead. The curve is beginning to flatten.

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, we passed that point at 16Mp resolution DSLR’s two years ago if truth be told. The only things that are coming along in the future, until 3D photography gets invented on a mass-usable level, are ever higher resolutions, faster frame rates, and more accurate scene recognition / exposure / focus technologies.

The exceptions to this are Landscape work, where maybe a small crop from a large area is needed, and of course, billboard images which are needed (and shot on medium format currently, in most cases).

We are lucky to be living at a time when such image quality is available to us for such a relatively small price (D5500 / D7200) and for that, I am grateful. I see the D500 as a tool for a specific job, action and wildlife mostly, and as I am not shooting this genre, it is not for me – unlike the D810, if only my budget would stretch, but never mind!

One very large asset that higher resolution DSLRs offer that is rarely mentioned is the ability to pull tight crops from an image. Thus happens a lot more often than many people realize, especially in sports photography, where the action is happening so quickly, and often over such a wide area that “shooting big” with cropping in mind is often the only way to catch “the” shot.

On the D500 itself, I just returned from a Nikon D5/D500 intro promotion event here in San Francisco. My original intention was to specifically check out the new D5, but the D500 sort of stole the show. The only slight drawbacks (for me anyway) were the lack of an on-camera flash, which I often have to use for quick candid shots at event, using my backup D700, and the new location of the ISO button, which requires some tricky right-hand finger gymnastics to set to auto-ISO.

On the Huge Plus side, the shutter is very quiet, even in machine gun mode, and the buffer is enormous, even when shooting full-res, 14-bit RAW+jpg. Though I wasn’t able to check my test shots on a large screen, the shutter silence and very slight camera body vibration when the shutter operates (compared to the D3s and D7100), I would guess that shutter-slam blur is a thing of the past with the D500.

All things considered, from what I could see, the D500 is an absolute bargain at the announced price.

(And no, I am not getting any compensation from Nikon. I was too late to the event to even get one of their damned free shirts or hats!)

Why isn’t anyone talking about the auto focus tuning? Does it save a profile in memory or is it just…ahem..focusing? Just like the big news with the D800 was the focusing at f8 and the zone range (not the 36mp), the big news for the D500 and D5 may be the auto focus tuning. If you have a 150-600 lens and the AF can tune at both ends automatically – that is big news.

From Japanese version D500 product description; www.nikon-image.com/produ…neup/d500/ ; there is a description about the CMOS. I tried to translate it by google translate and it gives me “Effective pixels 20.88 million pixels. Optical low-pass filter-less specification of newly developed Nikon DX format CMOS sensor”. Also, “No Optical Low-Pass Filter” is mentioned in the article from TODD OWYOUNG, Shooting Impressions: On Assignment With The Nikon D500 and SB-5000; www.ishootshows.com/2016/…d-sb-5000/

JW is correct. At the Nikon D500 intro event, it was specifically mentioned that the D500 does not have an OPLF filter, while the D5 does have one. According to the Nikon reps, the larger pixel size of the D5 requires the OPLF filter to prevent moire.

Full-frame cameras have their advantages, but not for all aspects of photography. I took a workshop on bird photography given by one of the local newspaper’s (San Diego Union-Tribune) professional photographers. The two most important things I took away from the workshop were 1) Sit to See…if you sit quietly birds will soon become active and visible around you, and 2) APS-C cameras (DX for Nikon, EF-S or EF-M for Canon) are superior to full frame cameras for bird photography because of the usually very small subject in the middle of the visual field. The relatively larger bird image size on the smaller DX sensor is usually sharper and brighter than with a full frame sensor. To reinforce this point, some of the bird and insect photos posted on this website that were taken with even smaller sensor Nikon 1 cameras are absolutely stunning.

The lower weight, smaller size, and lower cost of DX cameras compared to full frame are frosting on the cake.

Since I became active again in photography, about 5 years ago, I have viewed the DX and FX, or if you’re a non Nikon user, the APS-C and the Full Frame genres in the way I used to view (in film photography) the 35mm SLR vs the 120 Roll-Film (Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica) cameras.

The full frame, perfect for static, tripod based, architecture, landscape, macro, where you have time for composition and consideration on focus and exposure, to get a perfect shot, the APS-C being perfect for both hand-held and tripod shooting, more portable, great for action shooting as well as the ‘taking your time’ imagery.

The sheer quality of image that the D810 with a good lens delivers is testament to that. I would go further regarding the APS-C. I am running a D5500 now, and if you have not tried one, the first thing that hits you is how LIGHT it is. It has a very high specification ( www.nikonusa.com/en/Ni…-TechSpecs ) and goes with me everywhere, even on non-shooting days, I put a walkabout lens on, just in case. Yes, I agree with you, full frame is a bit of a niche, especially when it comes to enthusiast photography where the cost of it is better used in getting great glass on an APS-C based model.

Hi Flemming, I agree completely on the good glass for DX issue. Those of us who are of a more gambling nature buy outside of the Nikkor marque for some of our needs. I can tell you that MY Tamron 70-300 VC (note! VC version) yeilds far better results than my Nikkor 55-300mm, rightly so, as that Nikkor should, in my opinion, never have been launched. My view of Nikkor lenses went steeply downhill after opening RAW images taken with it. As I upgraded from 12 – 16 – 24Mp the problems just showed up more and more!

This IS the problem. As resolution climbs higher on DX cameras, any issue with a lens will become ever more obvious. In many ways, Nikon have done the upgrade thing completely backwards, in that, there needed to be a wide range of moderately priced lenses out there waiting for the new cameras as they release.

Certainly, if not, then, they should be released in tandem with the new bodies so that at least people new to photography won’t be immediately wasting money buying low resolution lenses for their new high res cameras.

Bottom line is, Nikkor are not the only lens manufacturer out there, and they need to get a move on, and think about the moderate price range, if they expect loyalty from people who buy the bodies to go on and buy only Nikkor lenses.

I have five lenses, two Nikkor, two Sigma, and one Tamron, and getting to this was not an easy journey. I must have bought and sold 15 lenses over the past five years to end up with my collection, but I am delighted with each of them, which is the whole point I guess.

Difficult question if you deal with it from the ground up, treating it as if no lenses had yet been made.

Bearing in mind the 1.5x crop factor, I think I would have to include the 10mm focal length somewhere (which =15mm). To do that would compromise the other end of the zoom range, so the 10-20mm range (= 15-30mm) which I have, is just about right. Maybe I would go for just a 10mm prime. Fast glass in this perspective is not of interest to me, due to the risk of CA so an F/3.5 would be plenty fast enough for viewfinder use. When shooting, the aim would be at most f/8 maybe f/11 in order to get the optimum image quality out of it, and a depth of field which includes fore and background in focus.

Moving up the focal length range, I’d quite like a DX focal length version of the 24-70mm VR FX, so we’re talking about 16-48mm, this time a high quality F/2.8 for a variety of uses, landscape, weddings and portraits among many.

Next, the DX true version of the 70-300 VR which would put you in the 105-450mm range, again, a high quality with advanced VR to improve or equal my Tamron (I love that lens).

Finally, a good macro like my Sigma 105mm OS (latest version) which doubles as a reasonably fast normal lens as well as a fantastic flat field lens for macro.

Money no object? then a pair of primes and a general purpose lens, say, improved versions of the 35mm DX and 50mm DX (though the present 50mm DX is really good anyway), and for times when I am travelling light and can’t carry more than a camera with lens attached, and one other lens, a good general purpose lens. My 18-140mm VR is really very good, better than the 18-105mm VR which started to show it’s weaknesses with 24Mp cameras, so I would like to see a true improvement on that one, with more aspherical elements and better coatings to further improve the image quality.

Nikon are not far off the mark, in fairness, but I think it has to be accepted that they allowed silly lenses to be ‘kit formed’ with the newer high resolution cameras, when they knew that this was just wrong. This is, peversely, more important for beginners than it is for seasoned photographers, as purchasers of D5200’s which packaged the old 18-55mm VR lens would be very dissapointed with results, while not knowing that it was the lens letting them down! It would have served Nikon better to have remodelled that lens sooner, than to have people buy the camera, find the results are no better than their old point and shoot, and then drop the DSLR idea completely – just because the glass wasn’t up to the job!

My daily lens for birding/insects/closeups/scenery is the poorly rated Nikon DX 18 – 300. It is light weight and compact for all day use and travel. It wasn’t very sharp and didn’t focus accurately out of the box so I sent it to Nikon under warranty. It came back a changed lens: sharp for an enthusiast grade telephoto at all focal lengths with accurate focusing in decent light. LightRoom easily corrects for distortion. The minimum focusing distance is 18″ for great closeups. Beautiful bokeh, excellent for birds in flight, fair for focusing on a bird in foliage, beautiful landscape and sky lens. I’d have no idea what to replace it with if and when it dies.

My Nikon 18-200 is similar and is excellent but I need a bit more reach for the birds. I use a Nikon 50mm lens for indoors, museums, etc.

A workshop leader, a pro who shoots Canon, strongly urged sticking with lenses the same brand as the camera for many reasons, not the least of which is compatibility with future cameras of that brand. Looking at the difference in price between a Tamron or Sigma to a comparable Nikon lens prorated over the long life of the lens it makes sense to me to fork out the extra bucks.

Hi David, I have to agree that unless the lens in question offers something a bit special, it is always wise to stick to the marque lens – Nikkor in the case of Nikon, etc. That said, I have a four and a half year old Sigma 10-20mm F/4:5.6 which I bought for my D5000. It has since worked perfectly on my D5100 and D5200 and only when I got my D5500 a few months ago, did I find a problem.

First let me assure any owners of the lens and / or camera that there is nothing to worry about. The issue I had was specific. All modes and settings worked fine other than one setting while using the lens in live view.

As most will know, the D5500 has a touch screen LCD – first Nikon to have it. The D500 is the second one, as far as I know. Using this lens on my D5500, there is an option in live view where you can tap the screen for a focus point, and the camera gets the lens to focus on that point, and then take the shot.

In my case, the lens tried to focus, failed, and then took the -out of focus- shot anyway!

Using the viewfinder in all modes everything worked perfectly and normally.

A quick check with the Sigma people in the UK and a very fast reply from them, told me that the lens needed a firmware update. Three days later, and at a cost of just £5 ($7.50) my prized lens arrived, and when tested, worked perfectly in live view, as well as all the original viewfinder modes.

Meanwhile we have a genre of cameras (3xxx and 5xxx) which cannot work with older Nikkor lenses, and cannot be modified to do so (autofocus on older lenses requires a noisy screw drive to be built into the camera, and the lens, focusing is not electronic). This kind of negates the old adage of sticking to the brand. I do know that if you spend more on the body, you can get that autofocus back in the 7xxx and higher products, but then, why did Nikon not provide it in all their cameras? it was the standard method of focusing up until they introduced electronic focusing in the AF-S products.

So, in accepting what you, and your workshop leader said, and there is wisdom in the advice, do not discount the use of new third party products, especially those from Sigma and Tamron, who I am sure, given my experience, will be there for you in the future, come what may.

The FX 50’s make good portrait lenses for DX, but they still represent a compromise for the 58-60 mm we really want. Any wide angle prime for DX. Any fast wide angle to match what Sigma and soon Tokina offer in the neighbourhood of f2. A macro lens with a focal length that allows a proper working distance for photographing insects. I know there are now some high priced FX lenses that could be useful but DX should be the lighter and cheaper option. Thus appealling to a larger consumerbase.

In most lens reviews the optical ‘problems’ are with vignetting and CA/softness etc at the edges, whereas the centres are normally fine. So does an FX lens always provide a benefit over a DX lens on a DX sensor, or is there some optical reason why a DX sized lens might be better on a DX sensor? Less diffraction perhaps? Any help appreciated!

Tony Northrup runs a very good, if casual, series of tests on video, and this very issue came up a few months ago. I can’t recall the fine details of it all, but I can tell you that our preconceptions (I was sure that an FX lens would outperform a DX lens, on a DX Camera) but as it turned out, the result was quite the opposite.

I said casual in the context, above, of presentation, not content. The tests were thorough and painstakingly detailed, and in all areas, other than vignetting, the FX lenses fared slightly worse than the DX lenses did – on a DX body, of course.

If you look out for Tony and Chelsea Northrup’s youtubes, or websites, you will find the article I saw. I was quite worried as two of my own lenses are ‘dual purpose’ fx and dx lenses, but I did some tests and my own results on a high res dx sensor proved nothing to worry about.

The only arguable motive for buying FX designed lenses and using them only on your DX would be an eventual intention to upgrade to an FX camera and thus, not have to re-buy lenses which are DX exclusive. Other than that, I hope that helps,

I run both formats, so it’s just more practical for me to buy mostly FX, and I haven’t come across major issues either way really. When doing the comparisons I’ve seen many reviewers like Christopher Frost who often shows FX lenses working less well on DX bodies, as you say, so I suppose DX lenses must be optimised to reduce the CA/softness (mild diffraction) increase of high pixel density. Would be interesting to see how sharp the circular projection of a DX lens appears on an FX body. Up to now, what I’ve found is that good glass is good glass on any format. My old (but razor sharp) AFS 80-200 works a treat on the D5300 body!

Thanks for the link. To summarise Tony, DX lenses are sharper on DX bodies at the wide to mid-angle end (when you want a wide-angle shot) because they are basically optimised for the small high pixel sensor. Whereas, for telephoto, FX lenses may be sharper on a DX body than on an FX body if you compare the same effective focal length.

The former points make sense. The latter point is more a comment on pixel density than optical performance however, so Tony was offering practical advice about being able to use smaller lenses and still get reach. If he had used a Canon 5dsr and then had similar levels of pixels when cropped to the DX equivalent focal length, he would have closer optical performance.

Anyway, Tony didn’t address the issue of whole frame performance and the typical vignetting/CA/softness found at the edges that should be reduced, so we can be confident of the benefits of an FX telephoto lens on a DX body I think, and moreover there are hardly any DX telephoto lenses to consider!

At the wideangle end, I suppose this could be a reason why many manufacturers are improving the quality of their FX lenses now, so they still perform acceptably on DX too. I think Chris Frost showed this to be the case with some of the recent Sigma Art and Tamron FX WA lenses.

I generally agree with what you say, but I have been going outside of Nikon for some lenses. Specifically, I love the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 which can replace all the primes in that range. I also use the Sigma 50 Art (really an FX lens) and the Sigma 17-70 as a light everyday walk around lens. I am very happy with all of them. Would I like to see Nikon equivalents to these – you bet. Interestingly, optically I am not sure Nikon can surpass the image quality I get from the Sigma 18-35 or Sigma 50 Art. Despite that, I would likely purchase Nikon equivalents if they were available. There are two obvious advantages – they hold there value better and you eliminate any potential incompatibilities. Another possible advantage is QC, although the latest Sigma releases seem to have caught up. Regardless, I am grateful that Sigma is filling these gaps.

I agree with that. I have the 17-70 too, and would love the 18-35 one day.

One feature I like about the Sigmas is the VR. I noticed that Nikon’s system turns on and off shortly after each shutter half-depression, which can give you a few clicks. Whereas, the Sigma system seems to turn on the first time, and then run at least 30 second after you release the shutter, so you don’t get another click if you re-depress in that time. Not sure if this is a ‘feature’ or just lucky consequence on my 17-70, but it could be a nice one to have the ability to select the duration on.

I certainly agree with the value of the DX format. I am known as the bird whisperer in my neighborhood. Long story… But, in addition to sitting still, I sometimes try to mock the sounds of certain birds. I rarely fail to get some sort of reaction. Sometimes they try to compete with me, etc. But, with bluebirds – if they are close – they will flock all around me. Cardinals will take a lot longer to get them to venture near. Mockingbirds vary in their response. Sometimes they take off. Other times they will get close and try to compete with my bird sounds. I have actually bonded with three House Finch babes still in the nest outside my office window. For a year they would fly close by me.

Chattanooga Charlie, My wife and I love birds. Picturing what you describe had us delighted and laughing.

Our back yard has birdbaths and various feeders. Once or twice a week one of our feeding birds becomes food for resident sharp shinned and cooper’s hawks. None of the birds are bonded to us but we are to them.

On our daily walks and hikes my wife hears the birds and starts looking in their direction where I see them with my sharper vision. Between the two of us we make a passable birder. My hearing is slowly getting worse and my whistling isn’t very good but I do manage to whistle convincingly enough to get a bird who’s in my camera’s viewfinder to look at me for its picture.

DSLR photography has opened up a new world for me the past 20 or so years. I’m very grateful to Nikon for their quality products and excellent support over the years and to people like Nasim who help us develop as photographers.

We have an amazing diversity of birds here in San Diego, but the drought has taken a big toll on them and all our wildlife. Our current heavy rain is most welcome.

One feature I use a *LOT* on my D7000 is its ability to program 2 different setting configurations for different specific shooting conditions and store them for later instant recall with the U1 and the U2 functions. For me, at least, this is really convenient and saves a lot of time. The D500 does not appear to provide any similar way to store and recall a custom bank of settings, or did I miss seeing that? It would seem that being able to set, store, and later recall different banks of settings would be just as useful in the professional arena as in the camera enthusiast’s world. Are the U1 & U2 functions something that Nikon feels would be of no use to the professional ? Not having a U1 and U2 function (or its equivalent) on the D500 would be a deal breaker for me. Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated!

Mike I feel the same way about U1 U2 but surely there will be a way to store custom bank s of settings likee in the pro bodys! , just not has convenient to get to ! u1 u2 has been something Nasim also really liked from the enthousiast level cameras! Another negative for me would be than being mostly a wildlfe photographer I use DR-6 right angle finder a lot wich is an incredible tool that gets a little while to get used to but helps so much to be able to lay my camera flat on the ground without having to break my neck to photograph those smallers critters ! Now I’ll have to buy the DR-5 wich is screw on and less convenient to take in and take out when the moment needs it !!

Yes. Normal AF Fine Tune, is for your front/back focus, to calibrate your lens! So for the camera to do this Automatically, is a defo no truster to me. Sounds like something else, that could easily go wrong!

Stefano Everything that is is manufactured for mass production is built within certain tolerances. If this tolerance is reduced by increasing acuracy the price will reach the roof. The same apply for every components used to build every lenses. In conclusion for every lens/body is a cheap solution to correct for the manufacturing tolerances. Its a blessing that many cameras have this feature available.

I think it’s really amusing that for at least 3 years I’ve been reading in various Nikon forums how Nikon is sorely missing a pro-body DX sports & wildlife camera. So we have the D500, which I’ve already pre-ordered, and now I’m reading comments like this: “I think the D500 really is a great camera for sports and wildlife. But other than that, I am not so sure… ” Yes, it’s specialized, but I think Nikon gave us exactly what we were clamoring for and then some. If you think 10 FPS is overkill and unnecessary then you don’t need it and have probably never experienced it. I’ve owned the D70,D80,D200,D300,D700,D3,D7000,D7100, and D750 ; shot over 100 weddings and have never used a built in flash and can’t imagine that I ever will. Slamming into the buffer prematurely tracking a soccer player or an eagle in flight is maddening. I’ll be the first to admit that it’s possible to get great shots with a D5xxx or D7xxx, some of the time, just as there’ll be a lot of crappy shots taken with a D500. I for one, have never been this excited about a new camera ever. I just hope it lives up to it’s specs.

don’t worry, someone has to justify its freshly bought 7200 (great dx camera, but freshly bought) someone has to bash DX, someone has to bash nikon, someone has to bash what they cannot afford (quickly replying to me that they could buy 2 D500 and they own 2 D4s + preordered 2 D5) and someone just likes to bash (13 yo kids)

I will get mine (d500) as soon as (1) i have saved enough money, (2) it has been reviewed 10 times, (3) quality checked by preorder bravehearts

Negative sentiments rule the internet especially when it comes to bashing Nikon. In this case even when they over-delivered in my opinion. What else can people ask for in a Dx body? It does what the D7200 (a general purpose enthusiast SLR) does, just much faster, easier and better (at least according to specs). So what are people not so sure about? Can someone with a straight face say this is only a sports and wildlife camera. This is a great general purpose SLR in addition to being a great sports and wildlife camera. The advantages you get in handling, speed and build are going to compete with the image quality you get from a D750 and the decision to move to FF at the same price point is going to be a lot harder for a lot of folks like myself. Now…to keep some negativity going… Nikon please give us some nice Dx primes :)

I wrote that and I think you misunderstood it. The D500 sure is a great camera. What I meant is that most non-professional photographs wont really need what it delivers. I have been shooting actively for the last 3 years. I have zero shots of birds or sports. It does not interest me. Hence, what do I care about frame rates, buffer or ultra AF? Pro-built body just means more weight to me. See what I mean?

If I were rich or earned money with photography, sure. I am not, so I rather use the price difference and buy lenses or a trip to some fancy place.

Gustavo You are completely right if you don’t do sports or birding you don’t need this new expensive toy. I remind following a course with Scott Kelby on kelbytraining now kelby one and the first things Scott mentionned is the large investment required to do sport photography, with fast lenses ($$$) and an FX camera with very good high iso low noise and a fast shooting number of frames per second with a VG buffer, specially because of the high iso required specially during night shots in arenas, etc. This was two years ago, now new technology appears that should reduced theses costs, but it won’t bring the cost doen enough so the majority of people will be able to afford it in the near future. For birding its most of the time in good lighting so fast lenses and an FX camera are not as important as for indoor sport.

I still shoot with a D5100 which has given me plenty. I do complain a bit in low light, though. I am considering upgrading eventually this year. I believe a D5500 or perhaps a D7200 (I’m tempted although I’m looking also at the D7100) will be more than enough to my needs and will serve me well for many years…

You are the most welcome. Many people go in debt for equipment they don’t really need or can’t really afford, loosing their judgement to regret it later. I like your way of thinking, but if I was you I would go for the D7200 or D7100 just because their better built and with more options than the D5500. I have a D7100 for over two years, and I still love it. After buying a new camera stop looking at what Nikon bring on the market for a few years and concentrate on learning to use it at its full potential before looking at any new camera. A good way to do that is to look on the internet at great images posted by others showing you all the time that you didn’t reached that goal yet as most won’t be even come close to reach ever.

Todays D-slrs are wonderfull cameras and particularly the Nikon with their highest DR on the market with Sony.

I have owned so many cameras over the years. In the Nikon stable, I have owned D80, D300, D5100, D7000, D7100, D7200. With the D5??? series, there is the problem with lack of a camera-based Auto Focus motor which can be a limiting factor with some lenses. Beyond that, I had two other problems with my D5100; 1) It has a very strange shutter noise which caused problems shooting wildlife. Among a bunch of locals I was shooting a black bear. When I snapped one, the black bear started for me, in what turned out to be a false charge. When I looked around, I was all by myself. The Bald Eagles also were irritated by the shutter noise. 2) Due to the articulating monitor, the familiar controls were moved or removed. Overall, I just found it more difficult to control the settings.

The jump from the D7000 to the D7100 was substantial. Nikon repaired the back focus problems while under warranty. The jump from the D7100 to D7200, was not so much as the 7000 to 7100. The D7100 probably has slightly better dynamic range. The D7200 did have quite a few menu changes, etc. The addition of the italics “i” on the D7100 & D7200 was very helpful for me. It made changing certain things like Active D-Lighting & remote control a lot more convenient. I shoot both my D7100 & D7200 almost everyday.

My recommendation (assuming you are not into selfies) is to get a D7100 or D7200. If price is critical, you can get new D7100 under $800 US, or D7200 under $1,100 US. Or get a Nikon refurb for even less. With an Adorama VIP membership, you get a warranty beyond the Nikon 90 days.

Great advice. In a way Nikon refurbs are better than new. They have been gone over thoroughly. All worn parts are replace with new. All is adjusted to factory specs, which may not be the case with a brand new camera from the factory. I believe the Adorama warranty is for one year.

For a complex electronic device the D7x00 cameras are tough and well made. If they work well, they will continue to work well for a very long time under normal use.

A d7200 is going to make me very, very happy soon. After so many years of desiring d7000 series, it’s worth waiting another 45 days for yet an even lower price. Wow, that was a long way – thank you Nikon.

Hi Here in canada we can buy a D7200 for less than 1300$cdn and the new D500 at its debut on the market will sell at a retail of near 2700$cdn. You have to figure out by yourself if the new amazing D500 worth the price of two D7200. If you think so you you have two choices, buy now (2700$+taxes) or wait a year so the price comes down, without knowing if our currency during that waiting year will drop again in value as its doing during the last two years.

Its a sad time money wise for us canadians , two years ago our currency was practically on par with the us dollar.

We love Canada. Sorry for the financial problems and hope they resolve soon. As they say, what goes down must come up (and visa versa).

We spent two weeks visiting Toronto (from San Diego) in the spring of 2013 and had such a wonderful time that we just might visit again this autumn. We took public transportation only and walked a lot. The birding was amazing, we photographed a family of wild mink at Toronto Islands which left us flabbergasted, much of Toronto is old and charming and photogenic, or ultramodern and photogenic, the Canadian people are warm and friendly, the many parks are beautiful and diverse, the surrounding country is forested and beautiful, and the food is great…all in all a wonderful place to visit if you like birds, nature, walking/hiking. We missed the world famous zoo, the largest in North America. That’s another reason for us to return.

To comment on your posting, my 6 month old D7200 is a thoroughly enjoyable camera with great functionality. The controls are convenient and easy to use.

If I were offered a free D500 I probably wouldn’t trade, even considering the D500’s larger buffer size. I shoot RAW in manual mode. For burst shooting birds in flight I have the rate set to 4 shots/second. I’ve yet to have the buffer fill while the flying bird is close enough to continue shooting with sharp focus, about 6 – 7 seconds. The D7200’s weight is comfortable to carry around all day with a resonantly light weight lens. This camera is capable of superb shots with decent light and a good lens.

If I was just moving up to these cameras, I’d buy the D7200 (or a rebuilt D7000) instead of the D500 and use the money I save on a better lens.

Hi David Thanks for your kind words about canada. I owned a D750+D7100+D7000+D90 and I take many birds photos in flight (Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3 VR), and like you I shoot exclusively in RAW, and always was. I really love landscape photography. I retired 4 years ago, and it was to have plenty of time for photography. When I mentionned the currency drop, I was referring to a brand new car for my daughter who was living near N.Y. that she couldn’t really afford so me and with my wife decided we would transfer her the full payment every month. Today with the money exchange its an extra 40% more every month to add to the amount we were transferring her two years ago, so its hurting…. Luckily for us we can afford it, but its no fun at all….. regards

I do not know what you shoot, but $2700 are a lot of money to justify. What could you do with the D500 that you can not do with your current camera?

One issue with these internet discussions and sites, beyond the informative aspects, they also create a craving to buy stuff we can not always afford or need. it pushes to consumerism. I always bought inexpensive cameras or close outs.

Regarding the higher Canadian dollar prices, you could almost save by taking the bus to NYC. air bnb a couple of nights and buy some closeout specials at Adorama or at B&H. I bought a refurb D7100 from Adorama that was new (i bet Nikon sells as refurb just overstock inventory).

I remember some years ago I was shooting a block party and other weekend events for a local paper. I was using a Nikon D5100, and this housewife had a D800 or something like that to shoot her family photos. Outside of red carpet, action sports, runway fashion shows and some wildlife, most cameras will do.

i agree with your general picture, but i think the d500 is a major boost (is not like from d7000 to d7100 to d7200) IF a camera was a camera, we all would own and use ONLY our 20 years old cameras,

now what you can do with a 10fps camera that you cant with a 5 fps one ? (some fx out there) i suppose quite a lot

now the d500 costs a lot, but my next question would be ‘ what are the consequences on D7x00 serie and FX line ?

will D7300 die off and the ‘highest non pro end’ be the D5x000 serie, so that who is serious in DX spends into the D500 new line ? and who not goes with maximum D5x00 serie ? otherwise one might still turn to D6x0 7×0 8×0 ?

OR will the D7300 gain in MP (up to 36) but keep its current ‘speed’ and same hi-iso noise as d7200 (i would prefer this eventually) ? NOR will the D820 get MORE MP so that on DX cropping one might get about 18-20 MP (as the D500) + have FX advantages (hi-iso) – but be prepared to pay 1k+ than the D500 and a slower camera

the D500 makes 2 tsunamies upwords and downwords (lol?) DX and FX will be affected (positively and negatively, tech and price wise

I had a D7000, wasnt satisfied with the noise I have a D600, i’m in absolute need of reach, and the DX factor is only about 10mb if im not wrong anything higher than 18MP in DX will make me happy

Stefano BIrds in flight with a D7100 is not that great because of the buffer size (raw 5 shots only less than a second)). When you shoot birds you want to capture the best gesture the bird does during its flight plus its not easy to handhold a 150-600 F5-6.3 (heavy & stability problems).

I print large format on my epson 3880. This is an expensive hobby and luckily its the only one I have. Nikon gears lenses and bodies are cheaper here after you add the currency value, plus we have 2 years warranty, plus an extra year if paid with a platinum credit card.

I am not saying I will jump to the D500, my D750 can also be used in DX mode giving the same reach as the D7100 with better IQ but with less pixels (16 MPX).

It will be interesting to see how sales will pan out. I’m not sure if Nikon see this as a niche sports/wildlife camera so sales might disappoint and for many I suspect a ” low end” FX camera may seem more attractive at that price point.

I do think Nikon know this is highly specialised. Just the fact that no other DSLR except the full Pro models goes without flash. Nikon know that many potential purchases will say no just on that point, but I think there are many many others who will say yes since they’ve been waiting from the D300s days for a proper sized DX body. What I’m worried about is there might still be a hint of ‘pro-sumer’ plastic that will put off semi-pros. Nikon, if you’re still working on it, please give us the proper greyed out crop area with AF illumination off, not just the box border.

Hi, I was just wondering if you may give your expert opinion between the two, like you did for D500 vs D7200. I would love to see the comparison as now both the cameras are the same price range with one rated as full pro APSC while other as prosumer FF.

Well I think the two most important factor that will make or break this camera is 1. ISO performance 2. Autofocus… I am sure 10 FPS is attractive but for pro presuming a move of bird or animal or even sports is good even at 5 fps, its nice to have 10 fps. So anyone who has tested the focus on moving objects and panning and ISO focusing and results at top end will clear all capability of this camera.

The main advantages of the D7200, at least for me,(portrait photography in studio with natural light and outdoor), is the resolution of 24 mp, which allows me to do wide shots and then crop, without losing quality; and the ease to define presets in User1 and User2. There’s many parameters involved when I switch between U1/U2 (outdoors or studio portraits, or in outdoors when the light conditions are too variables), and it would be a pity to go through menus to change each time. Check Google: U1 U2 D500 and it possible to see the discussion about this topic

Mario: I have the same requirement for higher resolution images, since the subjects I shoot and the conditions I shoot them in usually means I’ll be cropping. For that reason alone I’ve been considering getting a D810. Even though it doesn’t have a huge buffer, the 36mp images would allow heavy cropping, while still retaining quality. I own a D7100, but it has recently developed some AF issues, and that, plus the D7100’s tiny buffer, means I’ll be moving to a D7200, a D810 or the new D500 very soon.

Since I also shoot with a D700 and D3s when I need full-frame, a D810 might be a bit redundant, other than for the 36mp. Besides that, not even one sports shooter source I’ve spoken to or whose comments I’ve read has recommended the D810 for sports. All of which is making the new D500 look even more tasty.

One function that the D500 is supposed to have that may push me over the top is the improved AF fine-tuning, which – from what I’ve heard – can be applied to both the top and bottom of the zoom range on big telephoto lenses. Whether this is true or not, or even possible, could be the deal-maker. I’ll be attending another of the D5-D500 intro events tomorrow night, and I’ll try to get more info on the AF fine-tune system.

UPDATE: I attended another D5 – D500 launch event at Shutterbug in Santa Rosa, California, where I was able to ask the Nikon reps about the new AF fine-tune system in the D5 and D500. Unfortunately, though the reps confirmed that there will be a new AF fine-tune system in the two cameras when they go on sale, it has not yet been finalized and was not installed in the pre-production D5 and D500 models that were on hand for us to try out.

The Nikon reps who gave the presentation were very open about what they did and did not know about the new cameras, and they weren’t able to answer only a couple of questions, one about the new AF fine-tune system and the other about the actual release date. Though no one specifically said so, it sounded like perfecting the new fine-tune system was at least part of the reason for the release date delay on the D500. But that’s just a guess, based on reading between the lines.

I was able to try a Sigma 150-500mm lens that I brought with me on the D5 and D500, and it worked great. Very quick target acquisition, with no hunting no matter which focus array I used. And I cannot stress enough how incredibly huge the buffer is on both the D5 and D500. Even when set to 14bit, full-size RAW+jpg, both cameras just kept firing away when I held the button down. If anyone needs more than what these two cameras offer in buffer size, then maybe they should consider moving to strictly shooting video. And by the way, both the D5 and D500 offer hi-res still captures when shooting video.

Full disclosure: I did get a free Nikon hat when I attended, so I guess this is a compensated endorsement? But no free camera. Not that I’d turn one down if offered.

Thank you Chuck Lantz for the details given, i am eagerly waiting for the launch of this amazing D500. I already have a D750 but this camera is good for landscape photography, since I love to shoot bird & wildlife I need one with DX sensor and I think this D500 is ideal for birding.

The AFT was in place on the cameras we had to test here in the Seattle Area on the 9, 10, 11 of February. It is true that we had some issues figuring out how to actually get it to work, but it most certainly was present. I don’t see why this would have anything to do with the delay, seems the simplest explanation is believing what Nikon has publicly stated, but that is not nearly as much fun as speculation.

As to the D500, after 3 nights and 3 events, the camera is quite amazing. I think we are going to be quite happy when it finally arrives.

Bill: Your comments, and the timeline you mentioned, may have solved the puzzle. Since your group had some problems getting the new version of the AFT to work, it would be reasonable to guess that you’d uncovered a glitch that needed more work. More fine-tuning of the new fine-tuning, sort of?

In which case Nikon may have done some firmware magic with the demo models, which shut-down the new part of the AFT until it’s fixed. That way, the show(s) could go on, with only the new AFT missing. Just guessing.

If you still wondering which camera to use for studio – D810, hands down, no questions asked. D810 is the closest I ever seen any FX camera getting to Mid format sensor quality (color bit rate) and the image resolution is superb…

Dear Nasim, highly appreciate your opinion . I own a D700 and D7000 , I think it’s time for something new … Would D500 was an adequate substitute for both cameras ? I like to take pictures of jazz concerts and work with their travel itineraries . Please advice what to buy ? D750 , D810 ( the problem is a lot of megapixels and my IT infrastructure ) or D500 ?

for night event photography i DO NOT recommend D810. D750 is great but since the larger dof is actually a welcomed issue at night events, D500 may be better choice (plus low light focusing as well as low light performance of D500 may be better than D750 – focusing for sure, actual ISO performance maybe). I think that D500 would probable be the best choice for you (I have both D750 and D810 and do lot of low light event photography)

Since there are three different cards involved in the D500 and D5 discussion; SD, CF and XQD, I was wondering if there is a viable way around the current “either/or” situation. The D500 now has one SD slot and one XQD slot, and on the D5 you have the option of choosing either a two XQD or two CF camera. (FYI; according to a Nikon rep at one of the launch events, there’s a possibility that Nikon will allow D5 owners to send their cameras in for a card compatibility switch, either from CF to XQD, or vice versa)

My question is about the possibility of having changeable card modules on cameras, that could be switched-out by the user. The various modules could be for two CF, SD or XQD cards, or different combination, and be quickly swappable. Or is the hardware and software in the camera’s computers designed too specifically for certain card types, or combination of two types, to be changed that easily?

My question is why even use an XQD card at all. You can currently buy SD cards that are faster than an XQD card. Why force users into a situation where they have to buy another type of card. Two SD card slots would be just fine.

I could come up with a great conspiracy theory about Sony promising to sell Nikon a better sensor (for the D500 or other camera) if Nikon will make use of their XQD technology.

Charlie: Your conspiracy theory is not all that far-fetched. At the second D5/D500 intro event I attended, one of the Nikon reps mentioned that Nikon is in some sort of XQD partnership arrangement with others, which if I recall correctly goes back to the beginning of R & D for that card. I’d never heard of that arrangement before, but it does help explain why Nikon would be pushing XQD. Your “tit for tat” theory makes sense.

On the relative speeds and capacity of SD, CF and XQD cards, the same Nikon rep mentioned that while SD and CF cards are now pushing their design limits, the XQD design is capable of being scaled-up much farther in both speed and capacity. Terabytes were mentioned, which only makes sense with a twin-card back-up system.

Thanks for the info Chuck. Two issues; 1) Capacity: I currently use slot-1 (64GB) for Raw (NEFs) & slot-2 (32GB) for jpgs. On my D7200, I shoot well over 1,000 images before having to reformat, etc. And, the D500 has fewer pixels per image. Maybe I’m missing something. 2) Speed: Is there going to be a firmware upgrade to the D500 to make it even faster? SDs currently have the UHS-II capability which as far as I know Nikon has yet to take advantage of. The only legitimate reason that I can think of is some speed/pixel increase coming in the D5s and/or the D500s that is greater than the XQD is even capable of now.

There are several things about the D500 that I’m a little leary of, and the XQD is a major item due to its incompatibility & extra cost with the technology that I am now using. Unlike the D7000, D7100, & D7200, I will not be an early adopter. I was also an early adopter of the D5100, for which I was regretful. But, I learned a lot about camera controls from that experience.

XQD is newer, future driven technology – D5/D500 are new cameras – it makes sense to start using newer technology. If you can’t afford few new cards than you should not consider new camera (especially D5)

JJ, It doesn’t make sense to me to use newer technology just because it is newer. SD with UHS-II is faster than the D500 can keep up with already.

It’s not just the expense of a few new cards. My laptop reads SDs with no other connection. I have several SD Card readers. I have quite a few SDs. They work with all my digital cameras. If I go with the D500, I will have to have a supply of another technology that can’t be read on my laptop or the other readers that I have. I will also have to invest in an XQD reader, or two. It will complicate my workflow. Just my 2¢

question – what was the speed of first SD cards? Current SD cards are at the top of its capabilities, while xqd its at its beginnings. Canon implemented new CF Fast cards. Seriously, in the grand schema of things this is a minimal impact on the cost. Besides, based on Nikon specs it will support both.

No, xqd slot can’t use sd card, duh, but you still have SD slot (as secondary)…

Faster???? hmmm – see quotes below – I don’t know of any UHS-I cards which are 150MB/s write and 450MB/s read (UHS-II which is up to 159MB/s write and 312MB read is not supported by most Nikon cameras – yes you can use it but at UHS-1 speeds – same goes for new sandisk U3 spec cards which are capable of 240MB/s burst – knowong from real life these numbers are very “maybe”). So, no SD will be WAY slower XQD. One more time – if you spend 2K for D500 or over 6K for D5 I would hope you would have enough for couple cards and a new reader which can read both XQD and SD UHS-II cards… But hey, if use of XQD cards is a deal breaker for you nobody is twisting your arm to buy new D500…

“Nikon Asia just posted this performance test video showing how much faster XQD memory cards are than the CF cards they’re designed to replace (400MB/s versus 160MB/s). On a Nikon D4S DSLR, the XQD could record 67 uncompressed 16.2MP NEF RAW photos at 11 frames per second (or over 200 JPEGs in a single burst).

The faster speed also greatly cuts down the time it takes to transfer your shots to your computer. In the test, it took Nikon 1 minute and 55 seconds to transfer 1000 photos from a CF card to a computer. Those same 1000 photos were transferred in just 35 seconds using an XQD card — a 3x improvement.”

“Sony’s XQD-M series provides users ultra-high data transfer speeds of up to 440MB/s (read) and 150MB/s (write) for stable burst shooting, and the ability to backup 64GB of data in approximately 3 minutes, when using Sony’s newest card reader technology. The XQD format’s unique and robust structure, featuring card thickness and pin protection, and a tough, reinforced outer case is made for reliable use.”

“In conjunction with the new card options, Sony is introducing the world’s first XQD/SD card reader, model MRW-E90, which supports reliable, ultra-high speed data transfer to a PC from all XQD series and UHS-II SD cards, eliminating the need for multiple adapters and readers.”

I’m torn. I still shoot with my old D300. It’s been a workhorse for me, and all around the world, a couple of times. However, I think it’s time to retire it. I was in Peru last month, in torrential rain on the Inca Trail, when it died on me from being soaked. Tank that it is, I brought it back to life with my remaining dry wic t-shirts and body heat from sleeping with it in my bag, but it has earned a retirement.

I’m not a professional, but a pretty dedicated amateur that has made numerous prints, sold a little here and there, and love photography. I’m also budget conscious (who isn’t these days) and living in Canada, land of the weak dollar.

What do you think fellow photographers? Is a 7200 a worthy successor to the D300 (especially given the price point), or should I bite the bullet and splash out for a d500? A d7200 can be had for about $1100 Canadian, while I’m seeing pre-order prices for nearly $2600 for the D500.

Or, finally, given that most of my photography is travel based (a bit of landscape, people, and street) should I consider the d750? I’ve seen it here for about $2000-2100. Haven’t been full frame in many years, but it might be fun to get some of that wide angle back.

I’m a serious amateur photographer and hiker mainly interested in shooting birds and small life. It’s not clear to me that the D500 offers more than the D7200 in most situations. Comparing the D500 to the D7200, the much lower price, weight and size of the D7200 are big pluses for me. Besides birds, I love to photograph small, hidden things like mushrooms, insects, and spiders. When the light is low it’s great to have the built in flash of the D7200.

Regarding the D7200 I’ve not noticed any improvement in usability or picture quality between my dear departed D7000 and my D7200. The one useful difference for me is the larger buffer and shot speed in burst mode. For birds in flight or action sequences that difference is worthwhile, but maybe not worth the $500 higher cost of the D7200..

The cost of a D7100 would be $1500 saved over the D500, a good down payment for a great lens or another adventure trip.

The D750 is a Nikon not a Canon. Nikon FX cameras are fully capable of using DX lenses in DX Crop Mode. Unlike Canons APS-C lenses which Canon made unuseable on it’s full-frame cameras to increase revenue from lens sales.

omg, all the times I shot with my D750 I was not aware it was a Nikon *sarcasm* “Nikon FX cameras are fully capable of using DX lenses in DX Crop Mode” – why wpuld you buy FX camera and have to result to using it in DX mode? *confused*

You do sound confused. You sound like a Canon Fanboy. The biggest reason is because you have a bag full of DX lenses and you just bought into FX. Not everybody has thousands of dollars to buy all new lenses after just buying a new FX camera. Not that hard to figure out. If you’re still not getting it – Google it. It’s all over the internet.

and you sound like an idiot – Canon fanboy? Yeah, I have D750, D810 and F4 (and some older Nikon dx bodies) – yeah, I guess that makes me a “canon fanboy”. The question by DJ I replied to was “Or, finally, given that most of my photography is travel based (a bit of landscape, people, and street) should I consider the d750?” – Since he already had DX format camera (D300 – awesome camera which I had for a long time) it makes sense for him to stay with DX format and get D500 (which will be in my bag as soon as it becomes available to AID my D750 for a night event photography). If you have DX lenses stay with DX – if you really feel you need to go into FX then start buying FX lenses – it is big hit to a budget. (how many MPs do you lose by doing DX crop on a FX body? its like buying a Porsche but only being able to go under 80mp/h_ – but hey man, do whatever you want – who am I to tell you what to do….???

Anyways, I have no time for pointless debates – I gave DJ my recommendation based on MY experience or what I would do in his place; decision is up to him.

You said ” I would not consider D750 as none of your DX lenses would be usable.”, you moron. I corrected your mistake and you go all crybaby over it. Accept your mistake and move on. Take it like a man.

mistake? That I would not recommend a FX body to someone who has DX lenses? You are an idiot dude. Yes, you can use DX lenses on FX body but you lose a LOT of resolution (on D750 DX mode gives you just about 10MP vs 24MP). Mistake? lol… oh boy, You call it a mistake that I would recommend a camera (D500) which will have 2X resolution of D750 in DX mode, with better AF and newer processor for roughly the same amount of money to someone who already has DX lenses – whatever – I have no time debating with idiots.

I wasn’t talking about recommendations. I wasn’t talking about resolution. You said DX lenses were unusable and they weren’t. All the rest of this BS is just smoke and mirrors because you can’t take criticism. Grow up.

They are unusable – why would you but 24mp fx camera and use it at 10mp dx mode? Eventually you have to buy fx lenses… Sight*…

61.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2) Jj

May 9, 2016 at 12:46 pm

*sigh…

61.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3) WillieG

May 9, 2016 at 2:06 pm

To JJ.

For the reasons I previously cited and the reasons cited by others here. Do you think Nikon would build a feature into their cameras that no-one would use?

Did I wake you up? Because you’re starting to contradict yourself.

61.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4) Jj

May 9, 2016 at 3:05 pm

Lol, whatever dude. You started that pointless debate because you thought that i was a canon “fanboy” and now you are trying to justify your position. If you rather buy d750 instead of d500 when you already own dx glass than be my guess. Hey, it’s a free country… Lol

61.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.5) WillieG

May 10, 2016 at 4:33 am

If it’s a pointless debate then why do you keep replying. The Canon fanboy part was about your remark “why use DX lenses on an FX body”. That’s the excuse Canon fanboys use when you point out that Canons can’t do this. You made an incorrect statement and I corrected you. That’s the point, “dude”.

61.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.6) JJ

May 10, 2016 at 2:03 pm

lol, ok, you are right… hehehe

61.2.1.1.1.2) ardo

May 2, 2016 at 1:45 pm

I do that all the time with my Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS on my D750 when I want to carry light. Why using a DX lens on this FX body ? the answer is cleaner, better pixels, and better AF compared to my D7100 specially in low-light.

Do you really think that 10MP of D750 in DX crop mode will be better than 24MP of D500? Actually I would argue (and I love my D750) that since D500 will not have a low pass filter its image quality may be just as good or even better than D750 (Can’t tell since I did not get my D500 yet). But hey, you rather use D750 in crop mode than D500 than be my guest… :) – Anyways, need to get back to work (thousands of images to process)

The resolution of the D750 is at 90% in DX mode of the D4 enough for 90% of my needs unless I need to crop a lot, and it is rarely the case except for animal shootings, or print at large size. I doubt the D500 will have images as good as the D750 specially for DR at low iso.

??? both D750 and D4 are FX – try this: take a shot using D7200 at ISO 3200 – take the same shot using D750 in DX mode. Without any post (use straight raw file to jpg conversion in LR or other raw software) output to jpg. Then size down image taken from D7200 to the pixel size of DX crop D750 and tell me if image from D750 is really superior (I bet you it won’t be – if anything D7200 image will be better). Now, Imagine that pixel for pixel D500 will rival D750 at full 24MP to 24MP – do you really think that sized down D500 image will be inferior to D750? lol… ok, whatever… Again, I love my D750 but I will get D500 just so I can use some select Art lenses plus the fact that DX format has its benefits (plus my D810 is really not a good choice for night events – it does ok but I have to manually focus).

Once again, original question by DJ was: “Or, finally, given that most of my photography is travel based (a bit of landscape, people, and street) should I consider the d750?” I stand behind my reccomendation of D500 instead of D750 (ESPECIALLY since he mentions landscape and D500 will not have a low pass filter)

btw, it may sound like a little, but (nice try with 90%) but D4 is “4,928 x 3,280 pixels (16 MP) native LARGE.” at 16MP (16.2 to be exact I think) NOT 4096 X 3280. So 3936 x 2624 of D750’s crop mode is just over 10MP compared to just over 16MP of D4 – what math did you use to come up with 90%? My math gives me about 62.5% of pixel count of D750 in DX crop compared to D4 (if we calculate 10MP vs 16MP) (based on if 100% = 16 then x% = 10 | x=10*100/16) – this is approximation since we are working with closer to 10.3 vs 16.2

My 0.02$ comment: I am living near montreal and I own a D90-7000-7100-750. The D7200 is a D7100 with a better buffer (weak on the D7100 5 raws only) better AF and a few better features but its not a pro body. You wrote your D300 after using great care is still working. Knowing that I would wait a while to see if the D500 is the camera that Nikon claims it is (3000$ including taxes). If it is I would wait 6-12 months to see what the complains are, and at the same time a price drop should happen. I waited over a year to buy my D750+ 24-120 F4 for 3000$+taxes a year ago, and I don’t regret it at all, but this camera is not weatherized like your D300 with a weak buffer. Luc

Your experience level in photography is a lot like mine. In the Nikon line, I have owned the D80, D300, D5100, D7000, D7100, & D7200. I still have the last three. My needs however are somewhat different than yours. I shoot birds, squirrels, insects, flowers, etc. along with sports; and an occasional wedding. I haven’t had an occasion to soak a camera yet. I have used bags to keep my camera from getting wet from light rain. I shoot both the D7100 & D7200 almost every day.

One possibility you might consider is getting a Nikon refurbished D7100, and D750. As an Adorama VIP member you get a 90 day Nikon warranty & the balance of a year warranty due to being a VIP member. This way, you could have both a good DX & FX camera. Not sure the difference between the D7100 & D7200 is worth the cost difference. I have no connection with Adorama other than being a customer. Not sure if the VIP program is available in Canada.

I have the d7000 and d7100. Before the d500 was introduced I was looking for a Nikon camera i could shoot at a higher ISO with less noise. Wasnt to thrilled about going FF because of lenses. Now a refurbished d7200 can be had for around $700. That $1300 could be used elswhere if the 7200 could provide me with what I would like to have. I just dont know. I have seen recent photos taken with the d500 but can any of you tell me how high of a useable ISO you get with the d7200?

Hi All I don’t see the point of discussing the differences between the D500 vs D7200 , while the D7200 is a real camera and the D500 seems to be a promised camera that was supposed to available in march 2016 and later was promised for april 2016. Is anyone will wake-up the guys at Nikon to let them know we are at one day from the month of may…………….

Luc: Well, we have a couple of different ways to go on this deal. We can complain loudly about the delay, and maybe Nikon will panic a bit and push the assembly process even harder than I’m sure they already are, which will risk a drop in quality control, which in turn will most likely result in a glitch or two in the cameras when they hit the stores, which will make us complain even louder, and will obviously hurt Nikon sales overall.

Or we can be a bit more patient, while understanding that the introduction of any brand-new, cutting edge and extremely complex product, worldwide, within a certain time-line, is far from easy and is ALWAYS subject to delays.

So, there’s our two choices; ….rush it and gamble, or take the time to get it right the first time. One thing you can be absolutely sure of is that Nikon is definitely not dragging their feet, especially after their very widely publicized D5 and D500 product introductions. Another thing to consider is that a missed on-sale date raises expectations and increases criticism when the product is released exponentially. In other words, any glitches that would be seen as minor by critics if the launch was on-time, became major glitches after a delay. We’ve all seen that happen.

Luc; I’d be willing to bet that everyone at Nikon, from the top to the bottom, honestly believed that they could meet that delivery date when it was originally announced, and that those same people are now agonizing over the delay. What many people don’t understand is that the pre-order deposits don’t go to Nikon; they go to the dealers. And the dealers in most places must hold onto those deposits until the product is delivered, or the money is refunded, since most deposit contracts have a performance clause. If the cameras aren’t delivered to the customer within a certain time-period, the deposit must be returned, sometimes with interest.

The only value that pre-orders have for Nikon is that they can get a rough estimate regarding total initial sales. In short, nobody wins when a new product is delayed, except Nikon’s competitors, of course. There’s even a theory or two floating around that addresses that particular phenomenon; … supposedly, when the launch of a certain announced “hot item” is delayed or sold-out, a percentage of the potential buyers of that product will buy a competitors product, even if they had no intention of doing so prior to the delayed launch, simply because they have been put into – for want of a better term – a “buying frame of mind.” The less gentle term is “spending frenzy.” They have the money, … they want something that’s not available, … so they buy the next best thing.

This happens in auto sales occasionally, especially with niche market cars. Let’s say a new, very popular Widget 9000 hits the market, and practically everyone wants one. But there’s a long wait-list. So, the sales of other, similar cars spikes a bit, as the impatient Widget 9000-wanters go shopping. Weird, ain’t it?

Chuck: I see your point, but maybe I say maybe Nikon wasn’t really ready at this time to deliver on the market this camera and its spring time and as you know photographer and particularly animal photographers are planning to photograph new born animals with their mother and I am sure quite a few having waited over 7 years for a replacement of the D300s where probably ready to switch to the Canon 7D MKII . Let’s hope this camera will soon hit the market. regards

I am awaiting a real-world test of the D500 in two regards: how well it survives nasty weather, such as Antarctic Peninsula trips, and how well the focus system works with PELAGIC BIRDS. Presently I use a D7200 for pelagic birds (with 300 PF + 1.4x) and the 6fps works okay for me. But if the D500 can “find” small targets like storm-petrels and low contrast ones like sooty shearwaters, then it would be preferred. From reviews, I see no real improvement in high ISO noise.

I was struck by the comparative similarity of the “grain” similarities of the D500 and D7200 up through ISO 6400. Hardly a tooth full of difference in the response. While the D500 does show better response, but still grainy, at higher ISOs, that is not something I use. I presently have both a D750 for general use and the D7200 for seabird and forest photography (almost exclusively used with the 300pf lens). The focusing does not seem much better for the D500 over the D7200 for seabirds, according to anecdotal info. So the two things where the D500 is improved over the D7200 is the higher frame rate and the greater buffer.

The price tag for the D500 is steep, even for the real improvements in continuous shooting. If you need the low light, or really need another four frames per second, or a buffer of 100 frames, then it is worth it. But for imaging related to pelagic and forest birds, the tag may be too steep.

Something called “Auto AF fine-tune” has been mentioned as a feature of the D500, but I’ve never heard any details. How is it different from the existing AF fine-tune function found in most Nikons, where individual lenses can be fine-tuned for focus and the settings saved?

The Nikon D500 provides the option of “automatically” checking the AF adjustment against the focus directly on the view screen, and then applying that value. One Nikon guru noted this was definitely a step forward, but to try it perhaps three times for a particular lens, and use the median value.

Some folks using D7200s and other earlier bodies find the manual AF lens adjustment easy and not onerous. Others appear bewildered, or terrified about making a mistake. Personally, I find it is something I check from time to time manually, but find it something easy to do. I use a focal adjustment chart that shows on my iMac screen, and use a distance of 50x focal length. Exception is long lenses where I have a printed chart, and use a long hallway at work.

Hi Nasim, I appreciate the article very much but now I’m very confused about my body upgrade. I own a d5300 and use the 200-500 f5.6 VR for shooting birds, particularly small birds. But the slow focusing speed of this combo is very frustrating when the subjects are flying erratically. I was thinking upgrading to d7200 but then I came across your article and now I’m seriously confused. Will the d7200 + 200-500 be capable enough to do what I’m after? Or should I postpone my upgrade to save for d500? And how much of improvement do you think I can expect form the above mentioned combos when compared to my current combo of d5300 with 200-500? My main concern is about the AF speed and tracking subjects.

1st of all, I don’t have a D5300, nor a 200-500 lens. I have had a D5100 which I got rid of after one trip. I do currently have a D7000, D7100, D7200, & D500. And, I shoot with a 300 /F4D & a TC 1.4EII.

With that long a focal length, I would say that fast focusing on small erratically moving birds would be tough in any case. The other thing would be what mode are you using, Manual, Aperture, Shutter?

D7200 Pros in my viewpoint: 1) It has a popup flash which probably wouldn’t help in your scenario. 2) Particularly important for Aperture Mode, it has Easy ISO which the D500 does not. 3) It doesn’t require expensive upgrade to XQD technology 4) Slightly larger Mega pixels. 5) Less expensive. 6) Compared to D5???, it has better shooting controls.

D500 Pros in my viewpoint: 1) It has at least a vertically articulated monitor which might not be a help in your scenario. 2) Compared to D5???, it has better shooting controls. 3) You can setup Easy Exposure Compensation, which might be helpful if you shoot in Manual Mode. 4) In some scenarios, according to some it should focus a little faster than the D7200. Not sure about your scenario. Based on my experience, it would depend a lot on the lens, focal length, lighting, etc. 5) It will shoot with a lot faster frame rate & bigger buffer than the D7200 or D5???.

I have a couple of things to add on the D7200 vs D500 question. First – in my use it was generally good to excellent with birds, both flying and perched in a “jungle” of branches. Something else to consider that no one mentions. If you have your own copy of Photoshop CS6 it does NOT recognize the D500 NEF files. You need to either go in a different processing direction, or pay Adobe for its online version of Photoshop.

To me, the price of the D7200 is a “steal”. It is rugged, inexpensive, and in my mind is a great machine. And I feel more comfortable risking it in the rain, etc. So far it has done fine and I am impressed. My favorite lens is the 300 PF f/4 and it is a great package, with or without the 1.4x

If you are principally interested in flying birds, there certainly are benefits to the D500, with its faster multi-shot rate. But for birds, I have not heard anything really positive about the focus system. I suspect the focus system would certainly be better on sports. But Sports is not Birds…

Hi Tom I own the D7100-D500-D750 and for birding I use mostly the D500 . you wrote:

“If you have your own copy of Photoshop CS6 it does NOT recognize the D500 NEF files. You need to either go in a different processing direction, or pay Adobe for its online version of Photoshop” My comment:

1- If you use a purchased LR6 you can process the .NEF file of the D500 and you just have to do a right-click on an image and choose using the LR rendering. I use Photoshop CS5. Probably using the free adobe Dng converter would solve your problem without using LR.

2- The D500 has a much better tracking for BIF than the D7100 or D7200 see youtube.com video from Steve Perry, comparing D7200 vs D500.

correction: 1- If you use a purchased LR6 you can process the .NEF file of the D500 and you just have to do a right-click on an image and choose and choose . I use Photoshop CS5. Probably using the free adobe Dng converter would solve your problem without using LR.

I use either manual or shutter priority. In both cases I use auto ISO with max ISO limited to 3200. My issue is with the AF mostly. No complains about picture quality. When I encounter motion blur, usualy it’s for a slow shutter speed but that is rare since the VR in 200-500 is amazing.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.